Surprise. Stephen Harper’s U.S. border deal does imperil Canadian sovereignty

The U.S. government wants American police agents working in Canada exempted from Canadian law. If this is a surprise, it shouldn’t be.

The secret American demand was unearthed this week by Canadian Press reporters looking into Ottawa’s much ballyhooed border deal with the U.S.

Announced in 2011, the so-called North American perimeter security pact would give Washington the right to have its agents and police officers operate
alongside their Canadian counterparts within Canada.

In return, the Americans have said they’ll make it easier for trucks to travel back and forth across the border between the two countries.

While details of the pact remain sparse, it appears to give American agents working in so-called “integrated teams” the power of Canadian peace
officers — including the right to carry weapons and use them on Canadian soil.

The Conservative government has said only that U.S. agents operating in Canada will be involved in “intelligence and criminal investigations” and
that uniformed U.S. officers will help patrol the land border from the Canadian side.

Theoretically, Canadian agents could operate with similar powers in the U.S. in order to provide an appearance of reciprocity.

“This declaration is not about sovereignty,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper said when he announced the new arrangement two years ago.

In fact, it very much is.

The latest revelation underscores this. A 2012 RCMP briefing note obtained by The Canadian Press points out that Washington and Ottawa have been at
daggers drawn over whether U.S. agents and police officers who commit crimes in Canada would be subject to Canadian law.

The Americans prefer to maintain sole legal jurisdiction over their agents operating abroad. In Afghanistan, for example, all U.S. government soldiers
and officials are accorded diplomatic status — which makes them immune from Afghan law.

Similar “status of forces agreements” with other nations give Washington sole or shared jurisdiction over certain kinds of offences committed by
American soldiers and their dependants abroad.

Under a 1951 treaty, even Canada has ceded some rights over U.S. and other NATO troops operating inside this country. But the 1951 treaty does give
Canada the right to arrest and try NATO soldiers or their dependants who have committed non-military crimes such as murder.

It seems now that the U.S. wants more. According to the RCMP memo, Washington is demanding that its police agents operating in Canada be entirely
exempt from Canadian criminal law.

A U.S. agent who, for instance, shot and killed a Canadian while on Canadian soil would not be subject to a Canadian court.

As a Canadian this terrifies me.

With all the police brutality going on down in the states, the last thing I want is that happening up here in Canada by U.S police. If this is going
to happen, than they better be held accountable to Canadian law!!!! If the U.S is going to make a big stink about Mark Emery & extraditing him to the
U.S to face U.S law, than the g.damn U.S police better have to face Canadian law!!!!

Yeppers, that about sums it up, only have to add the biggest deficit in Canadian history, forcing everyone to retire at 67 instead of 65, selling out
our country and giving the Americans access to our private medical records and private conversations, and on, and on, and on.... abolishing the senate
haha and appointing questionable people to it, degrading parliamentary proceedings by obfuscation, well you get the picture.

That little creep is doing as much damage to our country as he possibly can while these goofs are in office, what did he say "you won't recognise
Canada after im done"..something to that effect.
Thank you Conservatives..hope you got what you wanted

With all the police brutality going on down in the states, the last thing I want is that happening up here in Canada by U.S police. If this is going
to happen, than they better be held accountable to Canadian law!!!! If the U.S is going to make a big stink about Mark Emery & extraditing him to the
U.S to face U.S law, than the g.damn U.S police better have to face Canadian law!!!!

((Yes I am irked by this news))

Prior to the G20 fiasco I would have agreed with you. However, since that "event", Ive realized that our police have the same militiary style
training as the American ones.

At the end of the day it's two sides to the same coin to me. I don't trust any of them regardless of what country they call home.

They are above the law in both countries, and are rarely held accountable for their actions.

Then the American cops who become "authorized" to work on Canadian soil will bring their superior attitude and entitled mentality with them and
shoot you in the back. A small adjustment in their geographical location won't change their mindset.

I think the NDP is the smart choice too. I do like how Trudeau wants to legalize marijuana but that's the only thing I like about the liberals.
Christy Clark is screwing up B.C. Makes me want to smack her with a salmon.

The last time we had to vote for MLA's, I really like what my local NDP guy was campaigning for. He was super friendly & he for sure had my vote.
Instead we have a terrible Conservative guy who doesn't give two flying hoots about this area.

We Canadians don't often fight but when we do, we burn down a chunk of your white house & win the war. ((Which technically was brown at the time but
after us Canadian came along, it had to be painted white, it was cheaper))

Christy clark though head of the liberal party is in fact a conservative. The Liberal party under Gordon Wilson was hijacked by Gordon cambell a
conservative. Christy did in fact table a motion to change the name of the party to conservative but the motion was defeated.

I'm an American so maybe I'm biased on this deal but I'm fine with it. Being immune to prosecution is important so that if a cop does have to attack
someone, they aren't held liable for assault. We do the same thing for our soldiers in war zones.

It also happens to provide a nice easy face saving way of refusing our particular brand of justice without looking soft on crime. Refusing to give
police immunity as a politically viable way of saying no. It's how Iraq got rid of us for a bit.

Yes I can see where in some cases it makes sense but with how the police in the U.S are abusing power, they should be held accountable for their
actions in another country. Especially when there is a high chance that they won't be held accountable in their own country. Yes I know that in war
zones U.S troops/cops aren't charged with their actions, I do think that most of it is to save themselves from actually getting punished when in the
U.s they would just get a light slap on the wrist.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.